Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:51:06 09/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2004 at 10:27:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 11, 2004 at 08:05:17, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 10, 2004 at 21:25:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I wrote Crafty to play chess, within a fairly tighly defined set of conditions. >>>It can play Fischer-random. >> >>I think you mean shuffle chess. > >No, I mean fischer-random. I've never released this version because of the eval >issues. For example a bishop at b1 is a problem since I have code to discourage >the very pawn pushes needed to free the bishop. Doing castling right was not >hard, but altering the eval to do that right is not so easy. Well it's your decision but that seems like a small issue to me, I'd release it anyway :) Perhaps the pawn push code could be implemented differently ie. by penalizing all white bishops&knights on rank 1, or perhaps "don't destroy future potential king-pawn shields while the king is still in the center"... >> >>>But not exceptionally well as it doesn't have an >>>evaluation that understands the odd starting positions. It will play the wild >>>game on ICC where all the pawns start on the 7th rank ready to promote, and all >>>your own pieces are in _front_ of those pawns. Its eval has no idea about that >>>game other than what the tactical search can discover. >> >>It just depends on what one is interested in, it might be that the user/tester >>has a broader taste in openings and wants to see how the engines do given those >>circumstances. >> >>Of course you can make your engine play e4 constantly to get a higher rating if >>that's all it knows how to play well, but personally I don't understand why that >>would be interesting from neither a development or user point of view. >> >>In the long run I think it is actually a bit damaging for the development to >>impose this kind of restriction. >> > > >How does your program do in 1. g4 openings? :) Relatively speaking no worse or better than other engines I hope. > >Which GM is best "on average"? > >answer: Unknown. > >Next question, "Who cares?" > >Answer: Nobody I know of since matches to determine this are never played. If everybody had a copy of those GM's at home I'm sure these matches would be played :) The question of which engine to use for analysis is interesting in itself, possibly it is even the primary question for most users, I know it is for me. Books serve only to skew the picture here, IMO. -S.
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.